|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,578 Year: 2,835/9,624 Month: 680/1,588 Week: 86/229 Day: 58/28 Hour: 0/4 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) | |||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Confidence, the topic here is the correlations between dating methods. Your objections to C14 dating have to explain the ones given in this thread and explain the relationship between the "noise" C14 signel in diamonds and other materials and their relationship to radioactive sources that can create C14 in situ.
Ignoring these relationships means you are not offering a complete objection to C14 dating. You also need to explain the many, many cases where C14 dating correlates well with other dating methods when the ages are under the calculated limit of C14 dating. You have to explain why the residual (as called by geologists and physicists) problems arise starting just where the half life of C14 suggests that it should (circa 50 kyrs). You are floundering around trying to get something to defend your view without accounting for more than a small part of the available data.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
The source you reference is seriously flawed in that it states:
quote: This is NOT the assumption at all. The age ice sheets is calculated based on the measured fact that O18 / O16 ratios based on temperature differences between winter and summer water source for the snow. Your source (suspiciously) neglects to mention this and neglects to answer this. It thinks that storms days apart can produce the layers -- NOT and produce changing oxygen isotope ratios they can't. Your source also attempts to support it's case with this obviously unthought out comment:
quote: This has been discussed and torn to pieces before. If they simply say it they aren't paying attention to what is wrong with the statement. Based on those weaknesses I have good reason not to trust your source and their lifting of any quote from a published paper without the total context.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Charley writes: If the elements only undergo radioactive decay then they were all created pre-earth and has nothing to do with Humphreys helium diffusion out of granite. Could you explain what you mean by this? It appears that you think that because only fission occurs that there can not be the creation of any new atoms of a given element. Is that what you mean? (You are correct that no fusion occurs. However, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with this issue.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
charley writes: I agree with you and Humphreys (Chemistry 101 gas laws) that the helium is not trapped when the granites formed. charley - msg 84 writes: The granites were created at the time the helium became trapped within the granites. So now you agree that Humphrey is wrong about helium indicating a young Earth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
From:
Do Greenland Ice Cores Show One Hundred Thousand Years?
| Answers in Genesis
We see that the author makes a number of unsubstantiated and wrong statments. He also ignores that actual facts; mostly this one:
quote: Since they actual can count changes in the oxygen isotope ratio for over 100,000 cycles AND the ratio varies with the seasons for all the time that it can be correlated with other events it is a very reasonable conclusion that they 100,000 cycles continue to represent seasonal variations all the way back. This statment is made:
quote: They ignore the Oxygen ratio within these thick layers and don't show how it could arise. They do state:
quote: However, this Meese paper shows (Ratios to 100,000 years)them being measured to 100,000 years. Will you please explain the contents of your references in more detail? They appear to be making a number of unsupported statements in order to make the answers come out the way they like. This is not uncommon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
The GRIP core Oxygen ratios go back in the msg 109 referenced chart to over 90,000 years. Charley's reference seems to have made some mistakes.
Edited by NosyNed, : Correct lack of clarity
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Like the geology threads the dating ones seem to dim quickly. Interesting how the YECers can't debate when they can't find it on the web. Correlations are, to the best of my knowledge, never touched by creo websites.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
You have listed a web site. What, exactly , do you think it says about the correlations?
We do not argue web sites. If we did we could just assign you 200 years of reading in the geological sciences. This thread contains a wealth of information showing that you are wrong. You contribution is one line. Since each point can "surely" be attacked I suggest you get started or withdraw as all others have done.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Well, it will take a lot of time. But I will put forth some effort. Thank you. That is what it will take. I'm sure RAZD will help you along by correcting any mistakes or points that you have missed. You'd be best to start by actually reading the material and seeing for yourself if you site does explain what is seen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
You haven't quite grasped the point of this thread yet Christbearer11;
Note the word "correlations" in the title. Suggesting that any one method may be wrong doesn't help your case at all. If you think the methods are wrong you have to show why they give answers that agree with each other and do so over and over with very different methods. For a simple case: Centuries ago geologists worked out the relative ages of rock strata by looking at which one was on top of another. Then 60 years ago the radio dating methods were used and they agreed with the relative order. How is that? Other cases of correlations are in this thread. Your comment "Can Age Dating methods works without error." doesn't touch the question of agreement between the methods at all. Of course, there are errors in any measurement made. That is why it is particularly valuable to have independent methods.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
It appears Daniel, that you are saying IF the published information is correct then the Earth is actually old.
The reason you think it is incorrect seems to be only one of two choices:1) the researchers are incompetent 2) the researchers are lying or deluding themselves Is this correct? Is this all you have to offer or is there more? Since the information is, in fact, available to young earthers why haven't they shown, in detail, at a publishable level of quality how the research is wrong. We've read what they have published and it doesn't begin to tackle all the issues; not even half of them. Why is that? Is it perhaps because they are the ones who are 1) or 2) from above?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
You did not provide any links that go straight to data or photos, just general sites. That's not good enough. The burden of finding where the data is is not on me. I am not going to research where it is, and if it requires a FOIA then it is practically inaccessable. I want to know where the full research report for the 8000 year tree ring chronology is and the full research report for the 800,000 antarctic core. I want all the chemical analaysis, all the O-18, all the wiggle matches. A straight link to all the research notes, a brief on the philosophical positions of each researcher. Then we have to look at modeling assumptions, paleo climate assumptions. And even then, bad science may be involved. We must reasonable rule out a hoax. But, I'll consider it good faith if you can just give me the direct link to the 8000 tree ring chronology. I don't think you CAN provide a link to anything as simple as all the sample codes and list of tree ring widths with 14C dates and lab reports for each piece. Either the whole thing will do, or the part that goes from 4000 b.p. back to 8000 b.p. Meanwhile, all my data for the correlations in biblical chronology is online at the link below. It is freely accessable. All the arguments, over 100 pages of charts. It is a self verifying bible code, and it PROVES that there is a fatal flaw somewhere in all of your arguments. But as long as you pussy foot around and fail to deliver the data your theory is as good as non-fasifiable. It is obvious too big a task for you to fully analyze all the data as it is for me. You don't have the time, inclination or skills to do it. However, it is obvious that if the problem exists as you think the scientists of ICR and AIG and such would be happy to take the data and check it as you suggest. In fact, they have had decades to do so. But, to my knowledge, they haven't published the results of such an examination. I've seen the arm waving silliness they do publish. Please point me to the real examination they have done.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Where did you supply the creationist communities answer to the correlations between dating methods?
Your post doesn't seem to answer my Message 286 at all. Did you have trouble reading it?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024